Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6541755" data-attributes="member: 22779">But are those roles or archetypes?&nbsp; See, I think this is another area where we're getting tripped up.&nbsp; A Human Soldier, in and of itself, is just an archetype.&nbsp; I'm presuming you mean soldier as in dude in armour, shield, spear.&nbsp; He belongs to some sort of rank hierarchy, has a handful of skills based on his background and class.In that context, what does role mean?&nbsp; For me, this is why I keep coming back to the idea of Logistic, Strategic and Tactical level play.&nbsp; His role in those three levels might even be described differently.&nbsp; At the Logistics level, he has access to his organization, which brings all sorts of tidbits.&nbsp; He can bring information to the table that no one else likely could, simply by asking his superiors and they'll tell him.&nbsp; IDHMBIFOM so, I can't remember exactly what soldier brings to the table, but, things like that would likely be what you could expect.&nbsp; OTOH, he probably won't be able to sell your loot because he has no real ties there.At the Tactical level though, Human soldier doesn't mean anything.&nbsp; Nothing in a Soldier background is really going to apply after initiative is rolled.&nbsp; There's just nothing really tied to what he'd do in combat in that background.&nbsp; Which is fine since backgrounds aren't linked to combat.&nbsp; I think it would be helpful to the discussion to bring a bit more specificity to the issue.&nbsp; When someone says role, if all you mean is &quot;what this character can do&quot; well, that doesn't really mean anything because it's so broad.&nbsp; It would be better to say, &quot;What is the role of this character in this type of situation&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6541755, member: 22779"] But are those roles or archetypes? See, I think this is another area where we're getting tripped up. A Human Soldier, in and of itself, is just an archetype. I'm presuming you mean soldier as in dude in armour, shield, spear. He belongs to some sort of rank hierarchy, has a handful of skills based on his background and class. In that context, what does role mean? For me, this is why I keep coming back to the idea of Logistic, Strategic and Tactical level play. His role in those three levels might even be described differently. At the Logistics level, he has access to his organization, which brings all sorts of tidbits. He can bring information to the table that no one else likely could, simply by asking his superiors and they'll tell him. IDHMBIFOM so, I can't remember exactly what soldier brings to the table, but, things like that would likely be what you could expect. OTOH, he probably won't be able to sell your loot because he has no real ties there. At the Tactical level though, Human soldier doesn't mean anything. Nothing in a Soldier background is really going to apply after initiative is rolled. There's just nothing really tied to what he'd do in combat in that background. Which is fine since backgrounds aren't linked to combat. I think it would be helpful to the discussion to bring a bit more specificity to the issue. When someone says role, if all you mean is "what this character can do" well, that doesn't really mean anything because it's so broad. It would be better to say, "What is the role of this character in this type of situation". [/QUOTE]

Verification